I agree with this anti-gun group

This is a discussion on I agree with this anti-gun group within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Got an email from the Va. Center for Public Safety. I have bolded the relevant part below.
I've always had a little problem with laws ...

I agree with this anti-gun group

Got an email from the Va. Center for Public Safety. I have bolded the relevant part below.

I've always had a little problem with laws that exempt law enforcement officers when they don't have a compelling reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Supporters,

The following bills from the 2009 General Assembly session, which will result in a decrease in the public's safety, were vetoed by Governor Kaine:

HB1851: Would eliminate the one gun per month purchase limit for active duty military. (There is no need for military to buy more guns than other citizens)

HB2528: Would add administrative expense and red tape for local police conducting gun turn-in programs. It would eliminate these local programs that get unwanted guns out of homes that do not want them.

SB1528: Would allow online courses to satisfy requirement for competency with concealed weapons; This is opposed by VSP and opens the door for anyone to carry a secret weapon with no knowledge of law or practical experience with firearms.

SB1035: Would allow concealed weapons in bars: Opposed by ABC officers and most people who know that guns and alcohol do not mix.

SB877: Would allow retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons into bars. (There is no need for this policy. These citizens should comply with laws for all citizens)

In the reconvened session on Wednesday April 8, the Senators and Delegates will have an opportunity to vote for or against the Governor's vetoes.

Please IMMEDIATELY contact the following Senators and respectfully request that they vote to SUSTAIN the vetoes on these bills:

Paramedic, afraid I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Allowing retired LEO to carry is one more step in the right direction.
This group is not going to be content until they remove everyone's right to carry.

First off any type of gun control is against the second amendment. With that said, people want their cake and eat it too. Some do not want guns in bars at all. Too take this position say that you are OK with some types of gun control. To let the state control where you can and can not carry. That is not a good thing. Have some faith in people. If someone does mess up then they will pay for it and I do not just mean money.

I kinda see where you are coming from...if you are retired, why should you get more rights than other citizens. I don't like "gun control" either, but at the same time I don't like giving one group more rights than another.

I kinda see where you are coming from...if you are retired, why should you get more rights than other citizens. I don't like "gun control" either, but at the same time I don't like giving one group more rights than another.

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent

I have to agree with Paramedic. Retired LEO are exactly that, retired. They are no different than any other Joe Blow on the street now. They should have to follow the same laws as everyone else. No "special" privileges because of their retired status.
As retired military it gives me no special status on base. I am required to follow the same rules as everyone else does.

Yeah, because 20+ years of carrying a weapon responsibly, under strict scrutiny by the public, the media, and the gub'mint, is NO indicator of your ability to continue to carry a weapon responsibly... Why give THOSE people any benefit of the doubt...

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

Yeah, because 20+ years of carrying a weapon responsibly, under strict scrutiny by the public, the media, and the gub'mint, is NO indicator of your ability to continue to carry a weapon responsibly... Why give THOSE people any benefit of the doubt...

Yawn, yet again.

I'm not talking about their ABILITY to responsibly carry a weapon, I have little doubt there. The point is the law is supposed to be blind, it's not supposed to say that you deserve to protect your life more than me because of the retired LEO status.

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

Totally disagree that retired LEOs are no different than any other Joe Blow. Police Officers potentially put their life on the line everyday. Every vehicle stop or domestic dispute could end in them being seriously wounded or dead. When's the last time any other Joe Blow is in this situation on a regular basis? Regardless of this, being a LEO makes you a lot more enemies than a normal job and those enemies are very often repeat felons. Don't you think that this potential threat to them entitles them to some perks? Being retired military may mean you have been in harms way or maybe not depending on you job, your rank and you location. I don't know how many soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are worried about an enemy combatant attacking them in the US. And Yes, I think our troops should also be treated better than the average Joe Blow.